Social Security: The Government Pension
Offset (GPO)
Updated February 8, 2021
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
RL32453

Social Security: The Government Pension Offset (GPO)

Summary
Social Security spousal benefits were established in the 1930s to help support wives who are
financial y dependent on their husbands. It has since become more common for both spouses in a
couple to work, leading to more cases in which both members of a couple are entitled to Social
Security or other government pensions based on their own work records. Social Security does not
provide both a full retired-worker and a full spousal benefit to the same individual.
Two provisions are designed to reduce the Social Security spousal benefits of individuals who are
not financial y dependent on their spouses because they receive benefits based on their own work
records. These are
 the dual entitlement rule, which applies to spouses who qualify for both
(1) Social Security spousal benefits based on their spouses’ work histories in
Social Security–covered employment and (2) their own Social Security retired-
or disabled-worker benefits, based on their own work histories in Social
Security–covered employment; and
 the Government Pension Offset (GPO), which applies to spouses who qualify for
both (1) Social Security spousal benefits based on their spouses’ work histories in
Social Security–covered employment and (2) their own retirement or disability
government pensions, based on their own work in government employment that
was not covered by Social Security.
The dual entitlement rule requires that 100% of a Social Security retirement or disability benefit
as a covered worker is subtracted from any Social Security spousal or widow(er)’s benefit an
individual is eligible to receive. The GPO reduces Social Security spousal or widow(er)’s benefits
by two-thirds of the retirement or disability pension from noncovered government employment.
The GPO does not reduce the benefits of the spouse who was covered by Social Security.
Opponents contend that the GPO is imprecise and can be unfair. Defenders argue it is the best
method currently available for preserving the spousal benefit’s original intent of supporting
financial y dependent spouses and for eliminating an unfair advantage for spouses working in
non–Social Security–covered employment compared with spouses working in Social Security–
covered jobs (who are subject to the dual entitlement rule).
Congressional Research Service

Social Security: The Government Pension Offset (GPO)

Background
In general, Social Security spousal and survivor benefits are paid to the spouses of retired,
disabled, or deceased workers covered by Social Security. The spousal benefit equals 50% of a
retired or disabled worker’s benefit and the survivor benefit equals 100% of a deceased worker’s
benefit.
Spousal and widow(er)’s benefits, which Congress created in 1939 and 1950,1 are intended for
individuals who are financial y dependent on a working spouse. For this reason, but also because
of the costs, Social Security does not provide both full worker and full spousal benefits to the
same individual. For persons who qualify for both a Social Security worker benefit (retirement or
disability) based on their own work history and a Social Security spousal benefit based on a
spouse’s work history, the dual entitlement rule effectively caps total benefits at the higher of the
worker’s own benefit or the spousal benefit. The dual entitlement rule has been in law since 1939,
when Congress created benefits for eligible wives and widows. The Government Pension Offset
(GPO) is analogous in purpose to the dual entitlement provision and applies to individuals who
qualify for both a retirement or disability pension based on their own non–Social Security–
covered government work and a Social Security spousal benefit based on a spouse’s work in
Social Security–covered employment.2 The GPO was original y established in 1977. It replaced
an earlier dependency test for spousal benefits that had been in law since 1950. The dual
entitlement rule and the GPO share the same intent—to reduce the Social Security spousal
benefits of individuals who are not financial y dependent on their spouses because they receive
their own retired-worker or disabled-worker Social Security benefits, or their own non–Social
Security pension benefits.
Social Security Covered and Noncovered Work
A worker is covered by Social Security if he or she works in covered employment and pays into
Social Security through the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) payroll tax. To be
eligible for a Social Security retired-worker benefit, a worker general y needs 40 earnings credits
(10 years of Social Security–covered employment).3 Disabled workers are general y required to
have worked fewer years, depending on the age at which the worker became disabled.4
Approximately 94% of workers were covered by Social Security as of January 2021.5 The
majority of noncovered positions are held by government employees: most federal employees
hired before 1984 and some state and local government employees. Nationwide, approximately

1 Wife’s and widow’s benefits were created in 1939, while husband’s and widower’s benefits were enacted in 1950. As
a result of the Supreme Court ’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Social Security Administration is now able to
recognize same-sex marriages and certain nonmarital legal relationships in all states, territories, and the District of
Columbia. See CRS Report R41479, Social Security: Revisiting Benefits for Spouses and Survivors.
2 T he Government Pension Offset (GPO) is often confused with the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP), which
reduces Social Security benefits that a person receives as a worker if he or she also has a government pension based on
work that was not covered by Social Security. For additional information on the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP),
please refer to CRS Report 98-35, Social Security: The Windfall Elim ination Provision (WEP) .
3 A worker may earn up to four earnings credits per calendar year. In 20 21, a worker earns one credit for each $1,470 of
covered earnings, up to a maximum of four credits for covered earnings of $5, 880 or more. Earnings credits are also
called quarters of coverage.
4 Social Security Administration (SSA), How You Earn Credits, 2021, https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10072.pdf.
5 SSA, Office of Chief Actuary (OCACT ), Social Security Program Fact Sheet, January 2021, https://www.ssa.gov/
oact/FACT S/fs2020_12.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

1

link to page 5 Social Security: The Government Pension Offset (GPO)

72% of state and local government employees were covered by Social Security in 2018.6
However, coverage varied from state to state. For example, approximately 95% of state and local
employees in New York were covered by Social Security, whereas less than 3% of state and local
employees in Ohio, and about 3% in Massachusetts, were covered.7
The Dual Entitlement Rule and the GPO
The GPO is intended to approximate Social Security’s dual entitlement rule. Both provisions are
intended to reduce the Social Security benefits of spouses or widow(er)s who are not financial y
dependent on their spouses because they receive retirement or disability benefits based on their
own work records.
Dual Entitlement Rule
Without the dual entitlement rule, a couple with two earners covered by Social Security would
receive two full primary benefits as wel as two full spousal or widow(er)’s benefits. The Social
Security dual entitlement rule requires that a beneficiary effectively receive the higher of the
Social Security worker’s benefit or the spousal or widow(er)’s benefit, but not both. The total
benefit received by a worker consists of his or her own worker benefit plus the excess of the
spousal or widow(er)’s benefit (if any) over his or her own benefit—not the sum of the two
benefits. So, in cases where the spousal or widow(er)’s benefit is higher than the worker’s own
benefit, the worker receives his or her own worker benefit plus the reduced spousal or
widow(er)’s benefit, which is the difference between the spousal or widow(er)’s benefit and the
worker’s own benefit (100% reduction). In cases where the worker’s own benefit is higher than
the spousal or widow(er)’s benefit, the worker receives only his or her own benefit (i.e., the
spousal or widow[er]’s benefit is reduced to zero).
Table 1 demonstrates how the Social Security dual entitlement rule is applied to spouses.
Table 1. Dual Entitlement Formula Applied to Spouses

John
Mary
Social Security monthly worker benefit (based on worker’s earnings record)
$2,000
$900
Maximum Social Security monthly spousal benefit (based on spouse’s earnings record,
equal to 50% of the spouse’s Social Security worker benefit)
$450
$1,000
Actual Social Security spousal monthly benefit paid (subtract worker benefit from
spousal benefit; $0 if worker benefit is larger)
$0
$100
Total (worker and spousal) Social Security monthly benefits paid to John and Mary
$2,000
$1,000
Source: Il ustrative example provided by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

6 SSA, unpublished table, “Social Security and Medicare Coverage of Workers from their State and Local Government
Employment in 2018.”
7 SSA, unpublished table, “Social Security and Medicare Coverage of Workers from their State and Local Government
Employment in 2018.” The disparity in coverage among states occurs because, while Social Security originally did not
cover any state and local government workers, over time the law has changed. Most state and local government
employees became covered by Social Security through voluntary agreements between the Social Security
Administration (SSA) and individual states, known as Section 218 Agreem ents because they are authorized by §218 of
the Social Security Act. Beginning in July 1991, state and local employees who were not members of a public
retirement system or covered by a Section 218 agreement were mandatorily covered by Social Security.
Congressional Research Service

2

Social Security: The Government Pension Offset (GPO)

In this example, both John and Mary have worked enough years in Social Security–covered
positions (i.e., paid into Social Security) to qualify for Social Security retirement benefits. John
has earned a monthly Social Security worker benefit of $2,000. His wife Mary has earned a
monthly Social Security worker benefit of $900. Both John and Mary are also eligible for spousal
benefits based on the other’s earnings: John is eligible for a $450 monthly spousal benefit, and
Mary is eligible for a $1,000 monthly spousal benefit. Under the dual entitlement rule, John wil
not be paid a spousal benefit because his $2,000 worker benefit based on his own earnings is
higher than and more than offsets the potential $450 spousal benefit. Mary’s worker benefit of
$900 must be subtracted from her potential $1,000 spousal benefit, and only the difference of
$100 is paid as a spousal benefit. In total, Mary wil receive $1,000 monthly—$900 as a Social
Security worker benefit and $100 as a Social Security spousal benefit. The Social Security
benefits received by the couple would total $3,000 per month.
If John were to predecease Mary, Mary would then be entitled to a monthly widow ’s benefit of up
to 100% of John’s monthly amount.8 Mary would continue to collect her own benefit of $900
monthly, and that amount would offset the potential $2,000 monthly widow’s benefit based on
John’s work history. Thus, Mary would receive a Social Security worker benefit of $900 and a
Social Security widow’s benefit of $1,100 ($2,000-$900), for a total monthly benefit of $2,000.
Because most workers are in Social Security–covered employment, the dual entitlement scenario
is more common than the GPO among two-earner couples. In 2019, approximately 7.3 mil ion
out of 45.1 mil ion Social Security retired worker beneficiaries, or about 16.2%, were dual y
entitled.9
Government Pension Offset Formula
The Social Security spousal or widow(er)’s benefit of a person who also receives a pension from
government employment (federal, state, or local) that was based on work not covered by Social
Security is reduced by a provision known as the Government Pension Offset (GPO).10 The GPO
reduction to Social Security spousal and widow(er)’s benefits equals two-thirds of the pension
from noncovered government employment. If the pension from noncovered work is sufficiently
large in comparison to a person’s Social Security spousal or widow(er)’s benefit, the GPO may
eliminate the entire Social Security spousal or widow(er)’s benefit.
In December 2020, 716,662 Social Security beneficiaries (about 1% of al beneficiaries) had
spousal or widow(er)’s benefits reduced fully or partial y by the GPO (this figure does not
include persons who were eligible for spousal or widow(er)’s benefits but were deterred from

8 T echnically, a widow(er)’s benefit is equal to up to 100% of the worker’s Primary Insurance Amount (PIA). T he
worker’s PIA is the benefit payable to the worker at full retirement age before any applicable reductions. T he
terminology used here is intended for ease of reference. For more information, see CRS Report R42035, Social Security
Prim er.
9 SSA, Annual Statistical Supplement 2020, Table 5.G1, https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2020/
5g.html#table5.g1 and T able 5.A1, https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2020/5a.html#table5.a1.
T he term dually entitled applies only to those who receive spousal or widow(er)’s benefits. If an individual’s own
worker benefit is greater than his or her spousal or widow(er)’s benefit, that person receives the higher worker benefit
and is not considered dually entitled. Administrative data do not provide the number of people in this latter category.
10 A pension in this setting is referred to as a periodic or lump-sum payment received from an employer’s retirement or
disability plan based upon the individual’s noncovered earnings while in the service of a federal, state, or local
government . T he payment can be from either a defined benefit or defin ed contribution plan—for example, 401(k),
403(b), or 457. For more information, see SSA, Program Operations Manual System (POMS), “ GN 02608.100
Government Pension Offset (GPO) Provision ,” at https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0202608100.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 7 link to page 8 Social Security: The Government Pension Offset (GPO)

filing for them because of the GPO).11 The GPO does not affect the amount of the Social Security
benefit a worker may receive based on his or her own work in Social Security–covered
employment, but it does limit the amount that can be paid to his or her spouse or widow(er) who
has worked in non–Social Security–covered employment.
Table 2provides an example of how the GPO is applied, assuming that John worked in Social
Security–covered employment while Mary spent her full career in state or local government
employment that was not covered by Social Security.
Table 2. GPO Formula for Spouses

John
Mary
Social Security retired- or disabled-worker monthly benefit (based on worker’s earnings
record)
$2,000
—
Non-Social Security–covered (government) monthly retirement or disability pension
—
$900
Maximum Social Security spousal monthly benefit eligible to receive (based on spouse’s
earnings record, equal to 50% of the spouse’s Social Security retired worker benefit)
—
$1,000
Reduction in Social Security spousal monthly benefit due to GPO (equals 2/3 of the non–
Social Security–covered pension: $900*2/3=$600)
—
$600
Actual Social Security spousal monthly benefit paid (subtract 2/3 of non–Social Security–
covered worker’s pension from Social Security spousal benefit: $1,000-$600=$400)
—
$400
Total monthly retirement benefits paid to John (Social Security only) and Mary (Social
Security plus pension from noncovered employment)
$2,000
$1,300
Source: Il ustrative example provided by CRS.
Note: Dashes means not applicable.
In this example, John worked enough years in Social Security–covered employment to qualify for
a monthly Social Security retired-worker benefit of $2,000. His wife, Mary, is not eligible for a
Social Security retired-worker benefit because she worked in a non–Social Security–covered
government position and did not contribute to Social Security. Instead, Mary is eligible for a $900
government pension based on her work in a non–Social Security–covered position. Mary is also
eligible for a Social Security spousal benefit of up to $1,000 based on John’s work history. Under
the GPO, Mary’s potential Social Security spousal benefit is reduced by an amount equal to two-
thirds of her non–Social Security–covered government pension (or a reduction of $600), and the
difference of $400 ($1,000-$600) is paid to her as a Social Security spousal benefit. In total, Mary
wil receive retirement benefits of $1,300 per month: $900 from her noncovered pension and
$400 from her Social Security spousal benefit.12
If John predeceased Mary, then two-thirds of her $900 noncovered pension ($600) would be used
to partial y offset the $2,000 Social Security benefit she would be eligible for as a widow based
on John’s work history. She would receive a $1,400 monthly widow’s benefit from Social
Security (in addition to her $900 monthly noncovered pension benefit).
Table 3 highlights the differences between the dual entitlement rule and the GPO.

11 SSA, Office of Research Evaluation and Statistics (ORES), unpublished Government Pension Offset T able A,
December 2020.
12 In this example, John is not eligible for a Social Security spousal benefit because Mary’s employment was not
covered by Social Security.
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 9 Social Security: The Government Pension Offset (GPO)

Table 3. Dual Entitlement Rule Compared with Government Pension Offset
Dual Entitlement Rule
Government Pension Offset
Applies to individuals who qualify for both (a) a Social
Applies to individuals who qualify for both (a) a
Security worker benefit (retirement or disability)
government pension based on non–Social Security–covered
based on their own work history in Social Security–
government employment and (b) a Social Security spousal
covered employment and (b) a Social Security spousal
or widow(er)’s benefit based on a spouse’s Social
or widow(er)’s benefit based on their spouse’s work
Security–covered employment The GPO reduces Social
history in Social Security–covered employment.
Security benefits that a person receives as a spouse or
Dual y entitled beneficiaries effectively receive the
widow(er) if he or she also has a federal, state or local
higher of the worker benefit or the spousal or
government pension based on work that was not covered
widow(er)’s benefit. Specifical y, the Social Security
by Social Security.
dual entitlement rule requires that 100% of a Social
The GPO reduction to Social Security spousal or
Security retirement or disability benefit earned as a
widow(er)’s benefits is equal to two-thirds of the
worker be subtracted from any Social Security spousal
noncovered retirement or disability government pension.
or widow(er)’s benefit one is eligible to receive. Only
Under the GPO, a Social Security spousal or widow(er)’s
the difference, if any, is paid as a spousal or
benefit may be reduced to zero.
widow(er)’s benefit and is added to the beneficiary’s
own worker benefit. Under the dual entitlement rule,
a Social Security spousal or widow(er)’s benefit may be
reduced to zero.
Source: Table compiled by CRS.
Rationale and Legislative History
Spouses’ Financial Dependence
The policy rationale for Social Security spousal benefits has been, since the creation of spousal
benefits in the 1930s, to support spouses who are financial y dependent on the working spouse.
The dual entitlement rule has operated since 1939 as a gauge of financial dependence.
Parity Between Spouses Subject to the Dual Entitlement Rule and
the GPO
The GPO is intended to place spouses and widow(er)s whose government employment was not
covered by Social Security in approximately the same position as spouses whose jobs were
covered by Social Security. Before the GPO was enacted in 1977, workers who received pensions
from a government job not covered by Social Security could also receive full Social Security
spousal or widow(er)’s benefits even though they were not financial y dependent on their
spouses. The scenarios below demonstrate why the law was changed.
Table 4 shows how the spousal benefit of the same individual, Mary, would vary under three
scenarios: (1) as a dual y entitled recipient of Social Security retirement and spousal benefits;
(2) as the recipient of a noncovered government pension and Social Security spousal benefits
before the GPO was enacted; and (3) as the recipient of a noncovered government pension and
Social Security spousal benefits after the GPO was enacted. In al three examples, it is assumed
that Mary is potential y eligible for a Social Security spousal benefit of $1,000 per month,
computed as 50% of her husband’s monthly Social Security benefit of $2,000.
As a dual y entitled retiree, under the first scenario, Mary’s $1,000 Social Security spousal
benefit is reduced by her own Social Security retired-worker benefit of $900, leaving her with a
net spousal benefit of $100 and a total (combined) Social Security benefit of $1,000. Under the
Congressional Research Service

5

Social Security: The Government Pension Offset (GPO)

second scenario (where Mary receives a noncovered government pension instead of a Social
Security retirement benefit), before the GPO takes effect, Mary’s Social Security spousal benefits
are not reduced at al and she receives a full Social Security spousal benefit of $1,000, plus the
noncovered pension of $900, for total monthly pension benefits of $1,900. Under the third
scenario (after the GPO was enacted in 1977), Mary’s Social Security spousal benefit is reduced
by two-thirds of her $900 noncovered government pension, leaving her with a net Social Security
spousal benefit of $400 ($1,000-$900*2/3) and a total monthly pension benefit of $1,300 ($900
from the noncovered pension + $400 from the Social Security spousal benefit).
Note that the reduction to Social Security spousal benefits is smaller under the GPO than it is
under the dual entitlement rule: Mary receives monthly Social Security spousal benefits of $100
under the dual entitlement rule, compared with $400 under the GPO. Her total monthly retirement
benefits are $1,000 under the dual entitlement rule, compared with $1,300 under the GPO. For
those under the dual entitlement rule, the Social Security spousal benefit is reduced by one dollar
for every dollar of Social Security retirement benefits based on their own work histories in Social
Security–covered employment. For those under the GPO, however, the Social Security spousal
benefit is reduced by approximately 67 cents for every dollar of a pension from noncovered
government employment.
Table 4. Mary’s Spousal Benefit Under Three Scenarios: Dual Entitlement Rule,
Before GPO Enactment, and After GPO Enactment

Mary works in
Social Security–
Mary works in Non-Social
Covered Position
Security–Covered Position
Before GPO
After GPO
Dually Entitled
Enactment
Enactment
Social Security retired-worker monthly benefit
$900
$0
$0
(based on own earnings record)
Non-Social Security–covered monthly pension
$0
$900
$900
Maximum Social Security spousal monthly benefit
eligible to receive (based on spouse’s earnings
record), equal to 50% of the spouse’s Social
$1,000
$1,000
$1,000
Security retirement benefit
Reduction in spousal monthly benefit due to
dual entitlement rule (equal to worker’s Social
$900
—
—
Security retired-worker benefit)
Reduction in Social Security spousal monthly
benefit due to GPO (equals 2/3 of non–Social
—
—
$600
Security–covered pension)
Actual Social Security spousal monthly benefit
paid
$100
$1,000
$400
Total monthly retirement benefits paid to Mary
(Social Security spousal benefit plus either (a)
$1,000
$1,900
$1,300
Social Security retired-worker benefit or (b)
noncovered pension)
Source: Il ustrative example provided by CRS.
Notes: Dashes are used to represent scenarios in which either the dual entitlement rule or the GPO are not
applicable. For example, in the dual entitlement scenario, Mary does not receive a noncovered government
pension and, thus, the GPO does not apply.
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 11 Social Security: The Government Pension Offset (GPO)

Why a Two-Thirds Reduction?
The GPO was original y established in 1977 (P.L. 95-216) and replaced an earlier dependency test
for spousal benefits that had been in law since 1950.13 The 1977 law provided that 100% of the
noncovered government pension be subtracted from the Social Security spousal or widow(er)’s
benefit. If the original legislation had been left intact, individuals affected by the dual entitlement
rule and the GPO would have been treated identically because, in both cases, the Social Security
spousal or widow(er)’s benefit would have been reduced by 100% of the pension from
noncovered employment.
The GPO’s two-thirds offset rule was established by the Social Security Amendments of 1983
(P.L. 98-21), which made a number of amendments to Social Security. One section of the House
version of this law proposed that the amount used in calculating the offset be one-third of the
noncovered government pension. The Senate version contained no such provision and would
therefore have left standing the 100% offset that existed at the time. The conferees adopted the
House bil except that the offset was fixed at two-thirds of the noncovered government pension.14
Who Is Affected by the GPO?
In 2018, approximately 6.6 mil ion state and local government workers (28% of al state and local
government workers) were in non–Social Security–covered positions.15 A government worker
who does not pay into Social Security may potential y be affected by the GPO if he or she is
entitled to a Social Security spousal or widow(er)’s benefit based on a spouse’s or ex-spouse’s
work in Social Security–covered employment.
General y, federal government employees hired before 1984 are covered by the Civil Service
Retirement System (CSRS) and are not covered by Social Security; therefore, they may be
subject to the GPO.16 Most federal workers first hired into federal service after 1983 are covered
by the Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS), which includes Social Security coverage.
Thus, although FERS retirees are not subject to the GPO, they, like al covered workers, may be
subject to the Social Security dual entitlement rule.
As of December 2020, 716,662 Social Security beneficiaries, or about 1% of al beneficiaries, had
spousal or widow(er)’s benefits reduced by the GPO (not counting those who were potential y
eligible for spousal or widow(er)’s benefits but were deterred from filing for them because of
their expectation that the GPO would eliminate the spousal or widow(er)’s benefit). Of these
persons subject to the GPO, 53% were spouses and 47% were widows and widowers. About 83%
of al affected persons were women.17 Table 5 provides a breakdown of the affected beneficiaries
by state and type of benefit.

13 T he dual entitlement rule has been in law since 1939, when spousal benefits were introduced.
14 Effectively, the GPO offset formula assumes that two-thirds of the government pension is roughly equivalent to the
Social Security retirement (or disability) benefit the spouse would have earned as a worker if his or her job had been
covered by Social Security.
15 SSA, unpublished table, “ Social Security and Medicare Coverage of Workers from their State and Local Go vernment
Employment in 2018.”
16 Workers who switch from the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) to the Federal Employees’ Retirement
System (FERS) must work for five years under FERS to be exempt from the GPO.
17 SSA, ORES, unpublished Government Pension Offset T able DE01, December 2020.
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 12 link to page 12 Social Security: The Government Pension Offset (GPO)

Table 5. Number of Social Security Beneficiaries Affected by GPO,
by State, Type of Benefit, and Offset Status, December 2020
Partially
Fully Offset
Offset
State
Total
Spouses
Widow(er)s
Statusa
Statusb
Total
716,662
380,007
336,655
511,122
205,540
Alabama
4,547
1,861
2,686
3,419
1,128
Alaska
3,322
1,888
1,434
2,419
903
Arizona
9,789
5,072
4,717
7,244
2,545
Arkansas
3,131
1,449
1,682
2,347
784
California
101,789
56,284
45,505
82,503
19,286
Colorado
26,498
14,931
11,567
15,407
11,091
Connecticut
9,675
5,712
3,963
8,464
1,211
Delaware
723
288
435
559
164
District of Columbia
2,146
513
1,633
1,772
374
Florida
28,807
15,146
13,661
22,040
6,767
Georgia
20,578
10,109
10,469
14,942
5,636
Hawai
1,926
986
940
1,486
440
Idaho
2,225
1,226
999
1,693
532
Il inois
48,046
26,620
21,426
40,353
7,693
Indiana
4,792
2,225
2,567
3,572
1,220
Iowa
1,875
889
986
1,441
434
Kansas
2,323
1,049
1,274
1,623
700
Kentucky
12,931
7,235
5,696
10,673
2,258
Louisiana
38,942
19,781
19,161
23,829
15,113
Maine
7,789
4,321
3,468
5,255
2,534
Maryland
9,023
2,957
6,066
7,221
1,802
Massachusetts
40,247
22,395
17,852
28,663
11,584
Michigan
6,044
2,988
3,056
4,535
1,509
Minnesota
5,057
2,538
2,519
4,146
911
Mississippi
3,222
1,453
1,769
2,448
774
Missouri
16,240
9,312
6,928
13,236
3,004
Montana
1,303
649
654
954
349
Nebraska
1,243
576
667
909
334
Nevada
11,221
5,956
5,265
8,611
2,610
New Hampshire
2,575
1,399
1,176
1,906
669
New Jersey
4,208
1,645
2,563
3,468
740
New Mexico
3,386
1,676
1,710
2,585
801
New York
6,961
2,995
3,966
5,585
1,376
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 12 link to page 12 Social Security: The Government Pension Offset (GPO)

Partially
Fully Offset
Offset
State
Total
Spouses
Widow(er)s
Statusa
Statusb
North Carolina
8,234
3,788
4,446
6,198
2,036
North Dakota
482
198
284
313
169
Ohio
100,185
55,733
44,452
61,735
38,450
Oklahoma
3,902
1,525
2,377
2,677
1,225
Oregon
4,835
2,553
2,282
3,569
1,266
Pennsylvania
7,623
3,201
4,422
5,778
1,845
Rhode Island
2,040
1,116
924
1,731
309
South Carolina
5,487
2,712
2,775
4,131
1,356
South Dakota
812
419
393
598
214
Tennessee
6,534
3,095
3,439
4,964
1,570
Texas
93,776
49,952
43,824
53,861
39,915
Utah
2,735
1,309
1,426
1,746
989
Vermont
676
350
326
510
166
Virginia
7,849
2,970
4,879
5,860
1,989
Washington
6,820
3,484
3,336
4,954
1,866
West Virginia
1,597
709
888
1,015
582
Wisconsin
3,497
1,786
1,711
2,807
690
Wyoming
597
318
279
400
197
Outlying areas and
foreign countries
16,397
10,665
5,732
12,967
3,430
Source: Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation and Statistics, December 2020,
unpublished data.
Notes: Includes persons entitled to spousal/widow(er)’s benefits only and those dual y entitled to
spousal/widow(er)’s and worker benefits.
a. Individual received no Social Security spousal or widow(er)’s benefit because the reduction in the Social
Security spousal or widow(er)’s benefit (a reduction equal to two-thirds of the pension from noncovered
government employment) was greater than the Social Security benefit itself. Either the noncovered pension
was large, or the potential Social Security benefit was smal (or both).
b. Individual received partial Social Security spousal or widow(er)’s benefits because the reduction in the Social
Security benefit (a reduction equal to two-thirds of the pension from noncovered government employment)
was less than the Social Security benefit itself.
In December 2020, the average noncovered government pension amount for persons affected by
the GPO was $2,531 per month ($2,302 for women and $3,600 for men).18 The average pre-offset
Social Security spousal benefit at that time was $915 per month ($985 for women and $591 for
men).19 The average reduction caused by the GPO was $729 per month ($763 a month for women

18 SSA, ORES, unpublished Government Pension Offset T able G209, December 2020. Data are limited to those
beneficiaries for whom the offset amount is available.
19 SSA, ORES, unpublished Government Pension Offset T able G309, December 2020. Data are limited to those
beneficiaries for whom the offset amount is available. Includes persons entitled to spousal/widow(er)’s benefits only
and those dually entitled to spousal/widow(er)’s and worker benefits. For a dually entitled beneficiary, the pre-offset
Congressional Research Service

9

Social Security: The Government Pension Offset (GPO)

and $573 for men).20 The average Social Security spousal benefit component after applying the
GPO was $186 per month ($223 a month for women and $19 a month for men).21 Among
beneficiaries who were affected by the GPO in December 2020, 71% had their potential Social
Security spousal or widow(er)’s benefit fully offset by the GPO reduction; that is, their potential
Social Security spousal or widow(er)’s benefit was reduced to zero.22 Among those whose Social
Security spousal or widow(er)’s benefit was partial y offset by the GPO reduction, on average,
the reduced Social Security benefit comprised about 41% of the total payment received
(noncovered government pension plus reduced Social Security benefit).23
In comparison to the 707,879 beneficiaries affected by the GPO in 2019,24 the dual entitlement
rule affected approximately 7.3 mil ion beneficiaries. About 7.0 mil ion (96%) of al affected
beneficiaries were women.25 Wives made up 42% of al dual y entitled retired workers, and
widows made up 54%. Among dual y entitled workers, the average Social Security total benefit
(retired worker plus spouse or widow(er)’s benefit) received was $1,350.26 Of this amount, $768
was the retired worker component of the benefit. The spousal or widow(er)’s benefit component
was $582 (after reduction for dual entitlement).27 On average, among dual y entitled retired
workers, therefore, the spousal or widow(er)’s benefit comprised about 43% of the total Social
Security benefit received.
Issues
Opponents argue that the GPO is not wel understood and that it harms lower-wage workers. The
GPO’s defenders maintain that it helps ensure that only financial y dependent spouses receive the
Social Security spousal or widow(er)’s benefit, while curtailing what otherwise would be an
unfair advantage for government workers who are not covered by Social Security.
Awareness of the GPO and Retirement Preparedness
The GPO’s critics say that it is not wel understood and that many affected by it are unprepared
for a smal er Social Security benefit than they had assumed in making retirement plans. The
provision’s supporters say it has been law for more than 40 years (it was enacted in 1977);
therefore, people have had ample time to adjust their retirement plans. P.L. 108-203, passed in

Social Security benefit is the difference between the larger spousal/widow(er)’s benefit and the smaller worker benefit.
20 SSA, ORES, unpublished Government Pension Offset , T able G609, December 2020. Data are limited to those
beneficiaries for whom the offset amount is available.
21 SSA, ORES, unpublished Government Pension Offset T able G509, December 2020. Data are limited to those
beneficiaries for whom the offset amount is available. Amounts may not add due to rounding.
22 SSA, ORES, unpublished Government Pension Offset T able G105, December 2020. Data are limited to those
beneficiaries for whom the offset amount is available.
23 SSA, ORES, unpublished Government Pension Offset T ables G209 and G509, December 2020. Data are limited to
those beneficiaries for whom the offset amount is available.
24 SSA, ORES, unpublished Government Pension Offset T able DE01, December 2019 .
25 SSA, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2020, Table 5.G2, available at https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/
supplement/2020/5g.html#table5.g2. T he term dually entitled applies only to those who receive spousal or widow(er)’s
benefits. If an individual’s own worker benefit is greater th an his or her spousal or widow(er)’s benefit, that person
receives the higher worker benefit and is not considered dually entitled. Administrative data do not provide the number
of people in this latter category.
26 SSA, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2020, Table 5.G3.
27 SSA, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2020, Table 5.G3.
Congressional Research Service

10

link to page 9 Social Security: The Government Pension Offset (GPO)

2004, included a provision that sought to ensure that SSA and government employers notify
potential y affected individuals about the effect of the GPO and the Windfal Elimination
Provision (WEP).28
The SSA’s personalized mailings to workers, entitled “Your Social Security Statement,”
contained a paragraph explaining the GPO and the WEP. Though SSA suspended the universal
mailing of annual statements in 2011 due to budget constraints, an online version that has retained
the GPO and WEP educational material can be created for those who establish an online
account.29 So the material in the statements can continue to reach a broader audience, Congress
directed SSA, in conjunction with the adoption of P.L. 113-76, the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2014, to resume the mailing of statements to targeted groups and to those who are not able to
successfully register for an online account.30
GPO Reduction Smaller than Dual Entitlement Reduction
The reduction to Social Security spousal or widow(er)’s benefits is smal er under the GPO than it
is under the dual entitlement rule. Those under dual entitlement face a 100% offset to spousal or
widow(er)’s benefits for every dollar received from a Social Security retired-worker benefit,
whereas those under the GPO face an offset to spousal and widow(er)’s benefits equal to two-
thirds of a non–Social Security–covered pension. In the example shown in Table 4, in which
comparable spouses each receive a $900 retirement benefit based on their own work histories,
applying the dual entitlement provision’s 100% offset results in a $100 monthly Social Security
spousal benefit for Mary. Comparatively, Mary qualifies for a $400 monthly Social Security
spousal benefit under the GPO’s two-thirds offset.
Parity Among Social Security–Covered Workers and
Noncovered Workers
The majority of state and local government workers, and federal employees hired since 1984, are
covered by Social Security. Some argue that eliminating the GPO would be unfair to government
employees in Social Security–covered positions, who would continue to be subject to the dual
entitlement provision. As discussed above, for those under dual entitlement, the Social Security
spousal or widow(er)’s benefit is reduced by one dollar for every dollar of Social Security
retirement benefits based on their own work history in Social Security–covered employment. For
those under the GPO, however, the Social Security spousal or widow(er)’s benefit is reduced by
approximately 67 cents for every dollar of a pension from noncovered government employment.

28 T he WEP reduces Social Security benefits that a person receives as a worker if he or she also has a government
pension based on work that was not covered by Social Security .
29 SSA at http://www.ssa.gov/myaccount/.
30 T he SSA plan to increase the number of individuals receiving Social Security Statements, March 2014,
http://www.ssa.gov/legislation/Social%20Security%20Statement%20Plan.pdf. Starting January 2017, paper statements
were sent to people aged 60 and over, who are not getting benefits and do not have an online Social Security account.
See https://blog.ssa.gov/finding-value-and-my-social-security-in-light-of-budget-cuts/. In 2019, S. 2989 and H.R. 5306
(Know Your Social Security Act) were introduced to direct SSA to provide statements by m ail unless the individual
chooses electronic delivery.
Congressional Research Service

11

Social Security: The Government Pension Offset (GPO)

Impact on Low-Wage Workers
There is disagreement about the original intention of the GPO, which was enacted in 1977. Some
argue that the original purpose was to prevent higher-paid workers from reaping overly generous
spousal or widow(er)’s benefits. Others contest this, saying that the GPO was never targeted to a
particular income group.
The GPO’s opponents argue that the provision hurts lower- and middle-wage workers, such as
teachers, and in some circumstances throws these workers into poverty. Opponents also say that
the GPO is especial y disadvantageous for surviving spouses.
Evidence of the GPO’s effect on low earners comes from SSA data on the program.31 While 71%
of those affected by the GPO have their benefits fully offset (December 2020), about 19% of
those with noncovered pensions of less than $1,000 per month had their benefits fully offset,
compared with 64% of those with monthly noncovered pensions between $1,001 and $1,999,
90% of those between $2,000 and $2,999, and nearly 100% of individuals with noncovered
pensions over $3,000 per month.32 Among the group of individuals whose benefits were
completely eliminated by the GPO, about 6% of this group had a noncovered pension amount
lower than $1,000 per month.33 And among the beneficiaries who received some Social Security
spousal or widow(er)’s benefit after GPO reduction (partial y offset), about 61% of them had a
noncovered government pension amount less than $1,000 per month, and almost 100% of them
had a noncovered government pension amount less than $3,000 per month.34 Thus, if the
noncovered pension amount is a reflection of the approximate earnings levels of individuals
affected by the GPO, a greater percentage of those with lower earnings receive at least a partial
Social Security benefit relative to the overal GPO-affected population.
Regarding concerns about pushing those affected by the GPO into poverty, in 2001, the poverty
rate among those affected by the GPO was approximately 6.0%, whereas the poverty rate for
those affected by the dual entitlement rule was approximately 8.9%.35 The poverty rate for al

31 How an individual would be affected by the GPO versus the dual entitlement rule is determined by several key
variables, including the relative earnings level of the individual, the timing of the work er’s noncovered employment
during his or her career, and the number of years in noncovered employment. T he primary difference between
outcomes among high and low earners is driven by the fact that a worker’s Social Security benefit (the basis for the
dual entitlement offset, which reduces the spousal benefit by 100% of this amount) is progressive, while pensions from
noncovered government employment (the basis for the GPO reduction, which reduces spousal benefits by two -thirds of
this amount) generally provide a pension that is the same fixed percentage of earnings regardless of the earnings level.
As earnings rise, if the earnings are from noncovered employment then the pension from this employment rises
proportionately; if the earnings are from covered emp loyment, then the Social Security benefit, which is progressive,
rises less than proportionately. Hence for high earners, the GPO offset to spousal benefits, which is two -thirds of
noncovered pensions and which rises proportionately as income rises, become s more significant than the dual-
entitlement offset to spousal benefits, which involves a 100% offset to the Social Security benefit and which rises more
slowly as income rises. In general, any combination of variables (such as earnings level, timing of no ncovered
employment, or number of years in noncovered employment) that increases the size of the noncovered government
pension more than it increases the size of the Social Security benefit (assuming the same earnings were covered by
Social Security) would make the dual entitlement rule more advantageous to an individual than the GPO.
32 CRS calculations based on data provided by SSA’s ORES, unpublished T able I, December 2020. T he sample is
limited to those beneficiaries for which the offset amount is available.
33 CRS calculations based on data provided by SSA’s ORES, unpublished T able I, December 2020. T he sample is
limited to those beneficiaries for which the offset amount is available.
34 CRS calculations based on data provided by SSA’s ORES, unpublished T able I, December 2020. T he sample is
limited to those beneficiaries for which the offset amount is available.
35 Poverty rates were calculated by David Weaver, SSA’s Office of Retirement Policy, using the March 2001 Current
Population Survey (CPS). Poverty status is taken directly from the CPS and is thus subject to errors in the reporting of
Congressional Research Service

12

link to page 15 link to page 15 Social Security: The Government Pension Offset (GPO)

Social Security beneficiaries aged 65 and older was about 8.5%. For comparison purposes, the
poverty rate for the general population at that time was approximately 11.3%.
Imprecision of the Two-Thirds Offset to Noncovered
Government Pensions
Opponents point out that whatever the rationale for the GPO, reducing everyone’s spousal or
widow(er)’s benefit by two-thirds of their government pension is an imprecise way to estimate
what the spousal benefit would have been if the government job had been covered by Social
Security. If two-thirds of the government pension were in fact a good proxy for Social Security
retirement benefits, there would be no significant difference in outcomes between the dual
entitlement rule and the GPO. As noted above (see the previous section, “Impact on Low-Wage
Workers”), however, there is great variation in outcomes. The GPO may lead to a smal er offset
relative to the dual entitlement rule for low earners than for high earners.
Ideal y, opponents argue, the way to compute the offset is to replicate the dual entitlement rule.
Under the dual entitlement rule, the reduction to the spousal or widow(er)’s benefit is Social
Security worker’s benefit, that is, applying Social Security benefit formula to the spouse’s al
Social Security–covered earnings. To mimic that approach, in cases that the spouse’s entire career
was not covered by Social Security, the GPO reduction would be an amount equivalent to
applying the Social Security benefit formula to al those noncovered earnings.36 Al covered and
noncovered earnings have been reported to SSA on Form W-2 since 1978.37 Although some initial
records were incomplete or duplicative, sufficient earnings records over a worker’s entire
working life are now available to SSA. This data’s availability means that the offset based on
both spouses’ covered and noncovered earnings is now an option for Congress to consider.38
Applying the GPO to Government Versus Private Pensions
Some question why the GPO does not apply to the spousal or widow(er)’s benefits received by
private-sector workers’ spouses, who may receive private, employer-sponsored pensions (defined
benefit or defined contribution) in addition to Social Security benefits. General y, the private-
sector employment on which the private pension is based would be covered by Social Security.
Therefore, the dual entitlement rule (which the GPO is meant to replicate) would instead reduce

income. T he sample for the GPO and dually entitled poverty rates only includes persons for whom SSA admin istrative
records could be matched. T he sample size for the GPO poverty rate is relatively small (130 cases). Poverty rates for
the Social Security beneficiary population aged 65 and over and for the general population do not require matched data
and are based completely on CPS data. Updated data for this comparison are not available.
36 In cases that the spouse’s career is split between covered and noncovered jobs, the GPO reduction would be the
Social Security benefit based on total earnings subtracting th e Social Security benefit based on covered earnings—that
is, the part of Social Security benefits based on total earnings that are attributable to noncovered earnings. In this
situation, the person might be entitled to both Social Security worker’s benefit s and spousal or widow(er)’s benefits
(i.e., dully entitled), and the person might be affected by both the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the GPO.
T he person’s Social Security worker’s benefit might be reduced by the WEP, and the person’s Social Security spousal
or widow(er)’s benefit might be reduced by both Social Security worker’s benefit (affected by the WEP) and the GPO
reduction. For more information, see CRS Report R45845, Social Security: Beneficiaries Affected by Both the Windfall
Elim ination Provision (WEP) and the Governm ent Pension Offset (GPO) .
37 Anya Olsen and Russell Hudson, “Social Security Administration’s Master Earnings File: Background Information,”
2009, Social Security Bulletin, vol. 69, no. 3, at https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v69n3/v69n3p29.html.
38 T he President’s Budget for FY2017 included a proposal to modify the GPO based on both spouses’ c overed and
noncovered earnings. For more information, see https://www.ssa.gov/legislation/testimony_032216.html.
Congressional Research Service

13

Social Security: The Government Pension Offset (GPO)

any Social Security spousal or widow(er)’s benefits for which a beneficiary might be eligible. As
noted earlier, in many cases the dual entitlement rule would produce a larger reduction in spousal
or widow(er)’s benefits than does the GPO.
Cost of Eliminating the GPO
Some argue that weakening or eliminating the GPO would be costly at a time when neither Social
Security nor the federal budget is in sound financial condition. In 2007, SSA projected the 10-
year cost of repealing the GPO to be about $42 bil ion.39 In 2016, SSA estimated that it may cost
about 0.06% of present-law taxable payroll to eliminate the GPO.40 Such a move could also lead
to demands for repeal of the dual entitlement rule to ensure paral el treatment for those working
in Social Security–covered employment. In 2003, SSA estimated that eliminating the dual
entitlement rule would cost approximately $500 bil ion over a five-year period.41
Last Legislative Change: The GPO Last-Day Rule
A burgeoning controversy arose in the 108th Congress with the revelation that a growing number
of state and local government workers had been making use of a little-known provision of the law
that al owed them to escape the application of the GPO if they switched jobs at the very end of
their government careers. That provision granted an exception to the GPO if, on the last day of
one’s government service, he or she worked in a Social Security–covered position. On August 15,
2002, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report that found that, as of June
2002, 4,819 individuals in Texas and Georgia had switched to Social Security–covered positions
to avoid having the GPO applied to their Social Security spousal benefits. The GAO projected
that the cost to the program for these cases could be about $450 mil ion.42
On February 11, 2004, the House of Representatives agreed to Senate amendments and passed
H.R. 743, the Social Security Protection Act of 2003, which became P.L. 108-203.43 As discussed
below, P.L. 108-203 eliminated the last-day exception clause by requiring those workers
switching from noncovered positions to Social Security–covered positions to work in the covered
position for at least 60 months (five years) before being exempt from the GPO.44 The new GPO
provision became effective for Social Security spousal benefit applications filed after March 31,
2004.

39 SSA, Memorandum from Bert M. Kestenbaum and T im Zayatz of the Office of the Chief Actuary, “Estimated
Additional OASDI Benefit Payments Resulting From Several Proposals to Modify the Windfall Elimination Provision
and the Government Pension Offset —INFORMAT ION,” October 26, 2007. SSA has not published a more recent
estimate.
40 SSA, Office of Chief Actuary, informal estimate in 2016.
41 SSA, Memorandum from Bert Kestenbaum of the Office of the Chief Actuary, “Estimated Additional OASDI
Benefit Payments from Proposals to Eliminate or Change the Dual-Entitlement Offset Provision—INFORMAT ION,”
April 17, 2003. SSA has not published a more recent estimate.
42 General Accounting Office (now called Government Accountability Office), Report GAO-02-950, Revision to the
Governm ent Pension Offset Exem ption Should Be Reconsidered , August 15, 2002.
43 For more information on H.R. 743, see SSA’s legislative bulletin on P.L. 108-203, http://www.socialsecurity.gov/
legislation/legis_bulletin_030404.html.
44 T his five-year period for GPO exemption is consistent with that required of federal employees converting from
CSRS to FERS.
Congressional Research Service

14

Social Security: The Government Pension Offset (GPO)

How Does the Last-Day Rule Affect Exemption from the GPO?
Current Social Security beneficiaries who are receiving spousal benefits and are exempt from the
GPO because they retired from their noncovered positions in government under the last-day rule
would continue to be exempt from the GPO. Individuals may stil be exempt from the GPO under
the following conditions:
 They applied for Social Security spousal benefits before April 1, 2004, and work
their last day in a Social Security–covered position within the same retirement
system. In this case, an individual who received a Social Security spousal benefit
before April 1, 2004, could continue to work in a noncovered position and stil
make use of the last-day rule when he or she retires from government
employment, regardless of when the retirement occurs.
 Their last day of government service occurred before July 1, 2004, and they
worked their last day in a Social Security–covered position within the same
retirement system. In other words, if a worker switched from noncovered
government work to Social Security–covered work for his or her last day of work
within the same retirement system, he or she is exempt from the GPO, even if the
worker files for Social Security benefits at a later date. However, if a worker
returns to work in a noncovered position in the same retirement system that he or
she previously retired from and new contributions are made by either the
employee or employer to the noncovered pension system, the worker’s last-day
exemption from the GPO wil be revoked and he or she wil be subject to the new
60-month requirement for exemption from the GPO.
 Their last day of government service occurs on or after July 1, 2004, and before
March 2, 2009, and they work a total of 60 months in a Social Security–covered
position within the same retirement system. The required 60-month period of
Social Security–covered employment would be reduced by the number of months
the worker performed in Social Security–covered employment under the same
retirement system prior to March 2, 2004. However, in no case can the 60-month
requirement be reduced to less than one month. For example, a teacher who is
currently working in a noncovered position but who previously worked for 12
months in a Social Security–covered position under the same retirement system
would have the 60-month requirement reduced to 48 months. The remaining
months to be worked (in this case 48 months), must be worked consecutively and
after March 2, 2004. Thus, if the worker switched to a covered position in the
same retirement system as his or her prior government work for at least the final
48-month period of his or her employment and his or her last day of employment
was before March 2, 2009, the worker would be exempt from the GPO.
 Their last day of government service occurs after March 3, 2009, and they work
their last 60 months in a Social Security–covered position within the same
retirement system.
Al other individuals receiving government pensions based on noncovered employment would be
subject to reductions in Social Security spousal or widow(er)’s benefits under the GPO.
Congressional Research Service

15

Social Security: The Government Pension Offset (GPO)

Author Information

Zhe Li

Analyst in Social Policy

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
RL32453 · VERSION 35 · UPDATED
16